 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't use the keyboard whilst racing, I've got all the buttons on the
>> wheel mapped to do whatever I need during a race, and they're fine to
>> use by feel alone.
>
> That is good. I thought that in racing cars there would be levers to
> pull, fuel levels and suspension to balance etc.
Depends on the car. The sort of basic cars I drive don't have any in-car
settings for the driver to fiddle with. However you can adjust things
like how much fuel is put in and whether to replace tyres etc at the
next pit-stop.
FWIW this is the wheel I've got:
https://secure.img-shopto.net/ShopToMedia/images/media/boxart/PS4AC178/Large.png
There's enough flexibility there to scroll through the menus in-car,
although depending on the track you may only have a few seconds to
fiddle with that stuff each lap, so it might take 3 or 4 laps to finally
change something!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But there are two big downsides IMHO. First and most importantly the
>> image resolution is absolutely atrocious. I'm only used to 1680x1050
>> monitors at home, but this is like going back to 320x240 days. I know
>> they're using a 1920x1080 panel under the hood, but this is shared
>> between two eyes and it's not used all the way to the edges.
>
> I don't really understand how 1920x1080 (or even 960x1080) can look
> like 320x240. That would be like 20% of the vertical resolution.
Imagine taking a 960x1080 half of your monitor, then scaling it up (in X
and Y) so that it stretches 3 metres tall and 3 metres wide. Now sit
about a metre from it. That is exactly what it feels like in the Rift.
If you then imagine a "monitor sized" section in the centre of your
field of view (that you'll spend 99% of the time looking at) the
resolution is a fraction of the total, and yes the pixels do probably
appear 5x bigger than what you're used to on a monitor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/10/2015 7:59 AM, scott wrote:
>>> I don't use the keyboard whilst racing, I've got all the buttons on the
>>> wheel mapped to do whatever I need during a race, and they're fine to
>>> use by feel alone.
>>
>> That is good. I thought that in racing cars there would be levers to
>> pull, fuel levels and suspension to balance etc.
>
> Depends on the car. The sort of basic cars I drive don't have any in-car
> settings for the driver to fiddle with. However you can adjust things
> like how much fuel is put in and whether to replace tyres etc at the
> next pit-stop.
>
> FWIW this is the wheel I've got:
>
> https://secure.img-shopto.net/ShopToMedia/images/media/boxart/PS4AC178/Large.png
>
>
> There's enough flexibility there to scroll through the menus in-car,
> although depending on the track you may only have a few seconds to
> fiddle with that stuff each lap, so it might take 3 or 4 laps to finally
> change something!
>
That's changed my understanding of motor racing games. The last time I
tried one was in nineteen canteen. ;-)
IIRC it was more a simulator in the flight simulator mode. More settings
and controls than you could shake a stick at.
To me your wheel implies that it is more FUN to play or drive than what
I thought it would be.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's changed my understanding of motor racing games.
Sim, not game please!
> IIRC it was more a simulator in the flight simulator mode. More settings
> and controls than you could shake a stick at.
One of the reasons I run the car/series I do is that there is very
limited car setup changes possible (tyre pressure and brake balance are
the main ones). Other more advanced cars have many more settings which
is maybe what you're referring to. The Formula 1 car for example has
pages and pages of settings. I don't have the time or experience to deal
with all that in addition to actually driving the car and learning tracks.
The other reason I run that particular car is that it is very popular,
there are races every hour and always at least one "split" (if there are
more people wanting to race than slots on the grid then it will split
into multiple races based on the speed of the drivers, so you always get
around a few people who are a very similar speed to you). Some of the
more advanced cars only get a decent grid size a few times a week.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/10/2015 9:20 AM, scott wrote:
>> That's changed my understanding of motor racing games.
>
> Sim, not game please!
>
Of course, I don't play PovRay either. :-)
>> IIRC it was more a simulator in the flight simulator mode. More settings
>> and controls than you could shake a stick at.
>
> One of the reasons I run the car/series I do is that there is very
> limited car setup changes possible (tyre pressure and brake balance are
> the main ones). Other more advanced cars have many more settings which
> is maybe what you're referring to. The Formula 1 car for example has
> pages and pages of settings. I don't have the time or experience to deal
> with all that in addition to actually driving the car and learning tracks.
>
> The other reason I run that particular car is that it is very popular,
> there are races every hour and always at least one "split" (if there are
> more people wanting to race than slots on the grid then it will split
> into multiple races based on the speed of the drivers, so you always get
> around a few people who are a very similar speed to you). Some of the
> more advanced cars only get a decent grid size a few times a week.
>
That sounds like a good set up. More fun than real life.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That sounds like a good set up. More fun than real life.
Certainly more fun per £. I imagine it's the same for your space
invaders game too :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/11/2015 7:56 AM, scott wrote:
>> That sounds like a good set up. More fun than real life.
>
> Certainly more fun per £. I imagine it's the same for your space
> invaders game too :-)
>
>
I don't know about Fun/£, I've spent a small fortune on upgrading my
machine.
Space Invader's game is a good description. Initially I thought it would
be a sim but since they use a WWI flight model for the spaceships and no
real integration of Newtonian physics or gravity wells etc. It is a
game. Very enjoyable and the graphics are stunning. I'm looking forward
to using VR with it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/09/2015 02:39 PM, scott wrote:
> I got an Oculus Rift DK2 yesterday :-)
Oculus Rift? Isn't that the one that everybody was really excited about,
and then Microsoft bought it and infected it with Kinect?
(I don't really follow these things closely...)
Isn't that rather heavy to have on your head for more than fifteen seconds?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.09.2015 um 19:30 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 03/09/2015 02:39 PM, scott wrote:
>> I got an Oculus Rift DK2 yesterday :-)
>
> Oculus Rift? Isn't that the one that everybody was really excited about,
> and then Microsoft bought it and infected it with Kinect?
Uh... no, not really. It's the one Facebook bought, and infected it with
nothing much.
> (I don't really follow these things closely...)
That's a pretty obvious fact ;)
> Isn't that rather heavy to have on your head for more than fifteen seconds?
No, actually not - welcome to the 21st century (2nd decade already, in
case you didn't notice) ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Isn't that rather heavy to have on your head for more than fifteen seconds?
It's pretty much the same feeling as wearing a pair of ski goggles.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
